Thursday, December 13, 2018

Recently
we looked at
philosopher Alex Byrne’s defense of the commonsense view that there are only
two sexes.In a new
article at Arc Digital,
Byrne defends another aspect of sexual common sense – the thesis that the
distinction between male and female is natural, and not a mere social construct.Let’s take a look.

As is
typically done these days by writers on this topic, Byrne begins by
distinguishing between sex and gender.Sex has to do with the biological distinction between male and female,
whereas gender has to do with the way the difference between male and female is
shaped by culture.In the article in
question, Byrne does not challenge the claim that gender is socially
constructed.He is concerned only to
rebut the more radical claim that sex is socially constructed.We’ll return to the gender question later,
though, because the claim that sex differences are natural is relevant to it.

Actuality
and potentiality, substantial form and prime matter, efficient causality and
teleology are among the fundamental concepts of Aristotelian philosophy of
nature. Aristotle’s Revenge argues that these concepts are not only
compatible with modern science, but are implicitly presupposed by modern
science. Among the many topics covered
are the metaphysical presuppositions of scientific method; the status of
scientific realism; the metaphysics of space and time; the metaphysics of
quantum mechanics; reductionism in chemistry and biology; the metaphysics of
evolution; and neuroscientific reductionism. The book interacts heavily with the literature
on these issues in contemporary analytic metaphysics and philosophy of science,
so as to bring contemporary philosophy and science into dialogue with the
Aristotelian tradition.

Monday, November 26, 2018

It’s the latest
open thread. This is the time to get
your off-topic comments off your chest, and to give your threadjacking impulses
free rein. From iPhones to I, Claudius, from D-list celebs to
Eugene Debs, from the A-theory to Blossom Dearie – discuss whatever you like, within
reason. Just keep it civil, classy, and
troll-free.

I should
perhaps clarify for some readers that these open threads are not “Ask Ed
anything” posts. Sorry, I just don’t have
time to respond to most questions. Think
of them instead as “Ask each other anything” posts.

Byrne argues
that it is a mistake to suppose that one’s sex is fundamentally a matter of what chromosomes one has or even what
sorts of genitals one has.Hence it is also
a mistake to point to examples such as individuals who have male chromosomes
but female external genitalia, or people who have only an X chromosome or XXY
chromosomes, as evidence against the thesis that sex is binary.In fact, Byrne suggests, chromosomes and
genitalia are reflections of a deeper distinction, and the nature of that
distinction is not captured by a mere description of the chromosomes and
genitalia:

Thursday, November 8, 2018

At the National Catholic Register, Edward
Pentin recently interviewed philosopher Thomas Pink on the subject of the
failure of the Church’s leaders to teach and defend her doctrines. (The interview is in two parts, here
and here.) Pink is interesting and insightful as always,
and in general I agree with the substance of his analysis. However, it seems to me that the way he
expresses his main point is potentially misleading and could needlessly open him
up to unfair criticism.

Saturday, October 27, 2018

Bernard
Wuellner’s always-useful Dictionary
of Scholastic Philosophy defines violence as “action contrary to the nature of a thing.” Readers of Aristotle and Aquinas will be
familiar with this usage, which is reflected in their distinction between
natural and violent motion. Some of their
applications of this distinction
presuppose obsolete science. For
example, we now know that physical objects do not have motion toward the center
of the earth, specifically, as their natural end. Hence projectile motion away from the earth
is not, after all, violent. But the
distinction itself is not obsolete. For
example, trapping or killing an animal is obviously violent in the relevant
sense. It is acting contrary to the
natural ends of the animal.

Friday, October 12, 2018

A voluntarist conception of persons takes
the will to be primary and the intellect to be secondary.That is to say, for voluntarism, at the end
of the day what we think reflects what we will.An intellectualist conception of
persons takes the intellect to be primary and the will to be secondary.For intellectualism, at the end of the day,
what we will reflects what we think.The
two views are, naturally, more complicated than that.For example, no voluntarist would deny that
what we think affects what we will,
and no intellectualist would deny that what we will affects what we think.But
the basic idea is that for the voluntarist, the will is ultimately in the
driver’s seat, whereas for the intellectualist, the intellect is ultimately in
the driver’s seat.

Monday, September 24, 2018

While there
are still a few days left to September, I should note that this month marks the
10th anniversary of this blog.It was initially started in part to serve as a kind of online supplement
to The
Last Superstition, which was published around the same time.Of the eleven books I’ve written, co-written,
or edited, seven of them (including TLS)
have appeared during the last ten years.We’ll see if I can keep up the pace during the next ten years.

Wednesday, September 5, 2018

There are
five considerations that seem to me to make it very likely that Archbishop Viganò’s testimony is truthful.To be sure, given how numerous and detailed
are the claims he makes, it would not be surprising if he has gotten certain particulars
wrong.And perhaps in his passion he has
inadvertently overstated things here and there.But the main claims are probably true.I certainly do not believe he is lying.The reasons are these:

Friday, August 31, 2018

Prof. John
Finnis is the most eminent living “new natural law” theorist, and a longtime
opponent of capital punishment.Indeed,
like other NNL writers, he regards capital punishment as always and inherently wrong, and believes that the Church could
adopt this novel teaching.You might
think, then, that he would approve of Pope Francis’s recent revision to the
catechism.Not so.

Tuesday, August 28, 2018

The pattern
is by now familiar. Serious criticisms
are leveled by serious people against the pope; the pope ignores them; and his
associates and defenders disregard the substance of the criticisms while
flinging ad hominem attacks at the
critics. This happened during the doctrinal
controversies over Amoris Laetitia
and capital punishment, and it is happening again in the wake of Archbishop
Vigano’s astonishing testimony. The
pope refuses to answer the charges against him.
The Usual Sycophants try to smear the archbishop and his defenders as disgruntled
reactionaries. Among Uncle Ted’s boys,
Cardinal Cupich leapt almost immediately for the bottom
of the rhetorical barrel: “Quite frankly, they also don’t like [the pope]
because he’s a Latino.”

Wednesday, August 15, 2018

An
international group of 45 Catholic scholars and clergy has signed an appeal to
the cardinals of the Catholic Church, calling on them to advise Pope Francis to
retract the recent revision made to the Catechism, on the grounds that its
appearance of contradicting scripture and traditional teaching is causing
scandal.The appeal and list of
signatories has
been published today as an open letter at First Things.

As LifeSiteNews is reporting, over 30
further Catholic scholars, clergy, and professionals have also added their
signatures to the appeal.This longer
list can
be viewed there.

About Me

I am a writer and philosopher living in Los Angeles. I teach philosophy at Pasadena City College. My primary academic research interests are in the philosophy of mind, moral and political philosophy, and philosophy of religion. I also write on politics, from a conservative point of view; and on religion, from a traditional Roman Catholic perspective.